No more flex work at Yahoo

[Deleted]

news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57570908-93/no-more-working-from-home-for-yahoo-employees-says-report/

Yahoo's focus on mobile apparently requires its employees to stay in the office.

ATD is reporting that CEO Marissa Mayer let it be known yesterday -- via a memo to employees from HR head Jackie Reses -- that come June, any existing work-from-home arrangements will no longer apply.

"To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side," reads the memo, aspublished by ATD's Kara Swisher, to whom it was leaked.

Swisher reports that the change has rankled some workers who say they were hired with the understanding that their work locale would be flexible.

But perhaps they should have seen this coming. Last July, not long after becoming the struggling tech icon's new CEO (and not long before touting Yahoo's focus on mobile), former Googler Mayer announced that food in Yahoo's URLs Cafe in its Sunnyvale HQ would thenceforth be free. Changes to the layout of the Yahoo buildings and individual employee work areas were also begun, to, as Swisher reported at the time, make them more "collaborative and cool."

Cool? Perhaps. But the new policy apparently strikes some as anything but, and that could be important in an industry where competition for workers can be fierce (not to mention an era when telecommuting is becoming more and more accepted). Swisher quotes an unnamed tech executive as saying, "Our engineers would not put up with that. So, we'd never focus on it." And she quotes an unnamed Yahoo worker as calling the move "a morale killer."

Still, Mayer is not alone in thinking that having workers in the same place can lead to casual exchanges that in turn can lead to breakthroughs for products. Steve Jobs thought this true as well (and Mayer's alma mater apparently agrees).

We've contacted Yahoo for comment on the memo and will update this story when we hear back. In the meantime, here it is in full:

YAHOO! PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION -- DO NOT FORWARD

Yahoos,

Over the past few months, we have introduced a number of great benefits and tools to make us more productive, efficient and fun. With the introduction of initiatives like FYI, Goals and PB&J, we want everyone to participate in our culture and contribute to the positive momentum. From Sunnyvale to Santa Monica, Bangalore to Beijing -- I think we can all feel the energy and buzz in our offices.

To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side. That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.

Beginning in June, we're asking all employees with work-from-home arrangements to work in Yahoo! offices. If this impacts you, your management has already been in touch with next steps. And, for the rest of us who occasionally have to stay home for the cable guy, please use your best judgment in the spirit of collaboration. Being a Yahoo isn't just about your day-to-day job, it is about the interactions and experiences that are only possible in our offices

Thanks to all of you, we've already made remarkable progress as a company -- and the best is yet to come.

Jackie

[Velar Fricative]

I can't speak for Yahoo employees but this decision doesn't bother me. I agree with Mayer. Some positions lend themselves well to telecommuting but I understand why she thinks it's a bad idea for her company.

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2013 10:18:05 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I can't speak for Yahoo employees but this decision doesn't bother me. I agree with Mayer. Some positions lend themselves well to telecommuting but I understand why she thinks it's a bad idea for her company.

This is the woman who took a 2 week maternity leave

[pescalita]

This would seriously raise my hackles, and I think it's a terrible idea for a company where you're having trouble keeping talent. However, it sounds like this is only for full-time telecommuters, and the occasional cable guy or sick kid is allowed (although maybe frowned upon). That I can understand.

[josieposy]

I dunno. I kinda agree with it on some level, but I also feel for the people who took the job based on location flexibility.

[Velvetshady]

Hmmm, does anyone know people working for Yahoo!? I could use the recruitment bonuses.

[froggy76]

I agree that it's better for everyone to be in the office. However, I can understand why employees would be upset, especially if they were hired assuming they'd WFH.

Tons of my coworkers WFH full-time or occasionally and it's so much less productive that way.

[Deleted]

I think the issue is that SOME people can work from home and do 100%, even more than would they would accomplish in an office setting. But there are probably an equal number of employees who are less productive working from home.
I know that personally, I get very distracted by things like housework, tv, GBCN, etc.

I do think they are giving people adequate notice that they will no longer work from home so that they can make the appropriate arrangements.

[bhnumbers]

I think it should be on a case by case basis. I think that making a blanket policy is a step backwards. I worked from home for 2 years in my last job and it was great. My company was in DC, but DH was in NC for grad school and obviously I wanted to be with him. It was awesome of my company to let me keeping working for them while we were down there.

And I got SO much more done working at home than I usually did in the office. I'm sure it depends on the person and the job, but there is no question that my productivity went up when I started WFH without all the distractions in the office.

[Velvetshady]

As I said in the MM post on this, only acceptable if it is accompanied with expectation of employees no longer having to work more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis, and that those 40 hours be during normal business hours, no longer having to answer phone calls and e-mails while at home, and no longer being "available" at all times.

And I would love to see a company make that model work in the current environment of the IT industry. I would be shocked, but I'd be sending my resume, and DH's resume, to Yahoo! as fast as I could.

[moreace01]

Feb 24, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 @septimus said:

news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57570908-93/no-more-working-from-home-for-yahoo-employees-says-report/

"To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side," reads the memo, aspublished by ATD's Kara Swisher, to whom it was leaked.

 

Let me guess - this doesn't mean they will be getting rid of off-shore resources. My office stresses being agile, co-location, working side by side. Yet...we have a ton of off-shore resources who work when we are sleeping (which kills me because we are the client yet we are the ones who call in to 6am and 11pm meetings with them. But that's another story). And really, I'll be honest - working with off-shore really sucks. But its cheaper for the company so they won't stop doing it.

[Deleted]

I don't have a problem with it in theory, but I think they better be prepared to pay severance to people who took their job with the understanding it was work from home. People likely planned their lives - buying homes in certain locations, having children at particular daycares, where their spouse works - around a work from home agreement. This is like a company announcing it is moving and you can stay or go. Bullshit.

[pescalita]

Feb 24, 2013 10:45:34 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

I think the issue is that SOME people can work from home and do 100%, even more than would they would accomplish in an office setting. But there are probably an equal number of employees who are less productive working from home.
I know that personally, I get very distracted by things like housework, tv, GBCN, etc.

I do think they are giving people adequate notice that they will no longer work from home so that they can make the appropriate arrangements.

I don't think this is the reason (at least not stated). It's not about efficiency of work, it's about working together. There is value in face to face communication. When I work from home, I have no problem getting my tasks done, but if something comes up or someone needs quick question or clarification, that rarely happens by email. I'm a person that relies heavily on email, but I'll acknowledge talking through it really is superior.

And meetings. On average, the person on the phone gets about 1/2 the usefulness, and that's with screen sharing.

Neither do I think they're going in the direction Velvet suggests. The end makes clear occasional WFH still fits. Especially for an IT dept, I don't understand how you can not be on call 24/7.

[pescalita]

Feb 24, 2013 11:18:58 GMT -5 elle said:

I don't have a problem with it in theory, but I think they better be prepared to pay severance to people who took their job with the understanding it was work from home. People likely planned their lives - buying homes in certain locations, having children at particular daycares, where their spouse works - around a work from home agreement. This is like a company announcing it is moving and you can stay or go. Bullshit.

Also this. I hope they were realistic enough to prepare for inevitable attrition.

[Kore]

Feb 24, 2013 10:33:48 GMT -5 Velvetshady said:

Hmmm, does anyone know people working for Yahoo!? I could use the recruitment bonuses.

Ha! A friend of mine just became a yahoo employee within the past month when his startup was purchased by them.

[Velar Fricative]

I just read the MM thread about this and could not disagree more with most of the responses. I've always felt that WFH is a nice perk to have but that it's one of those perks that could easily be taken away if there's no contract or something stating that Worker X can always WFH.

And guys, this is Yahoo - a struggling company and the kind of company that has to have some sort of collaboration among its employees if it has any chance of succeeding again. Yes, one can collaborate with others remotely but I can see Mayer's position on why she would prefer employees working together in the same building. Like I said, some positions and companies lend themselves nicely to WFH, but I just don't think Yahoo is one of them.

[pinkeggs]

I think it's shitty. Like elle said, I am sure there were people who set their lives up with the understanding that they would be telecommuting. It sucks to accept a job under a certain set of circumstances and perhaps several years into it, you are told that it will be completely different.

I do understand where she is coming from, but I think she should allow the current telecommuters to grandfather in and just not offer that option to future employees anymore.

[Deleted]

The responses on MM are making me sick.

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2013 11:36:59 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

The responses on MM are making me sick.

Really, how so?

[josieposy]

I'm wondering why it has to be all or nothing though. Can there not be a compromise here?

I totally get that some industries need that face-to-face interaction, but I'll bet a lot of employees are pissed as hell right now, and how is that helping morale and encouraging collaboration?

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2013 11:40:32 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Feb 24, 2013 11:36:59 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

The responses on MM are making me sick.

Really, how so?

Read some of them. 

[pescalita]

Feb 24, 2013 11:36:59 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

The responses on MM are making me sick.

I like the one who assumes she has a SAHH. Yeah, the CEO of Survey Monkey is totes on diaper duty 9-5.

I'm mostly confused where anyone is getting the idea that no WFH is ever allowed. "Use your best judgment" must mean different things to some people. It seems like its being way overblown. All this reads to me is "please do your main work in our offices"

[josieposy]

I do think she's getting a large amount of this attention simply because of who she is. Yahoo needed a shakeup, and they got it. I do wonder if it's too little too late for the company as a whole though.

[Kristinmo]

I have no problem with this. There will be some fallout and attrition but with Yahoo struggling they may have been headed towards layoffs anyway. This lets them find out who is really committed to the company and those that aren't will weed themselves out.

And I'm LMAO at the posters who think this means employees shouldn't be expected to do any work outside of normal office hours. Anyone who accepts a salaried job for a decent wage should know that's not going to happen in this day in age.

[noodleoo]

Feb 24, 2013 11:43:58 GMT -5 pescalita said:

Feb 24, 2013 11:36:59 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

The responses on MM are making me sick.

I like the one who assumes she has a SAHH. Yeah, the CEO of Survey Monkey is totes on diaper duty 9-5.

I'm mostly confused where anyone is getting the idea that no WFH is ever allowed. "Use your best judgment" must mean different things to some people. It seems like its being way overblown. All this reads to me is "please do your main work in our offices"

To be fair, the article posted on MM was very diff than the one posted here.

But I agree, WFH is a perk, not a guarantee. If people can't handle the change in policy, they'll find new jobs. I'm sure Yahoo expects some turnover. I think people get very attached to their perks and forget that a lot of companies still don't do it on more than an occasional basis. 

[Deleted]

Whatever the article said, some of the responses were gross.

[Deleted]

I actually love my current arrangement because I can WFH and go into an office and interact with co-workers. I also have a boss that understands I get up at 4am and work a few hours so that I can be home with my kids in the late afternoon. WFH days I save 45min-1hr on commuting alone and can do things like get my eyebrows waxed during lunch.

[Velar Fricative]

I fail to see what her 2-week maternity leave has to do with any of this. She's the CEO of a major company; if she wanted to take more time off, fine, but she didn't and unless she changed the parental leave policy for every Yahoo worker to allow for no more than 2 weeks off after the birth or adoption of a child, then I'm not sure how her leave is somehow a reflection of this new change.

I guess maybe it's because I don't see how WFH is automatically any more family-friendly than working in an office, and maybe the feeling that it is is why her leave was brought up? If you WFH, I doubt your boss expects you to be simultaneously taking care of your child(ren); I'm under the impression most people who WFH still have another childcare provider (in-home or out).

[Deleted]

WFH might be a guarantee if its in the employee handbook, an employment contract, or was sold as a perk of the job. And yes, eliminating it is a material change. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone hired to work in one city, then asked by my firm to move to a different city - I left the firm instead - so I can't get beyond the havoc this will wreak on the employee' lives. It's fine if Yahoo makes this a new policy going forward, but to change it retroactively sucks.

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2013 12:11:40 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I fail to see what her 2-week maternity leave has to do with any of this. She's the CEO of a major company; if she wanted to take more time off, fine, but she didn't and unless she changed the parental leave policy for every Yahoo worker to allow for no more than 2 weeks off after the birth or adoption of a child, then I'm not sure how her leave is somehow a reflection of this new change.

I guess maybe it's because I don't see how WFH is automatically any more family-friendly than working in an office, and maybe the feeling that it is is why her leave was brought up? If you WFH, I doubt your boss expects you to be simultaneously taking care of your child(ren); I'm under the impression most people who WFH still have another childcare provider (in-home or out).

I think the bitterness is that she thinks just because she is super woman everyone else is too without necessarily her resources.